Bigwigs and witnesses

[DVV]

Notice he mentions the peaked cap referenced by Lawende, but doesn't mention the man's features, which wouldn't have fit Klosowski.

Hi Hunter

thanks for pointing out this important detail. Strangely enough, Abberline did not say : "he wore a sailor-type peaked cap" - although it was exactly what Klosowski used to wear. He didn't say "deerstalker" either, and that, in my opinion, indicates how biased he was in 1903, and how he could select or ignore details from various witnesses that seemed to back up his theory.

Too bad Aberline wasn't asked : "And what are we to do with the Mitre Square witness that said Jack was a Gentile with a fair moustache ?"

I suspect he would have answered, in a pure Anderson style, something like : "Lawende and his friends were Jews, that could be the reason why they didn't say the man looked like a foreigner".

[Adam Went]

Hunter:

The only factor that Long's testimony boasts over the other witnesses is that she is quite possibly the only witness to see the man likely to be JTR in partial daylight - and even that is a very generous stretch. She also puts his age about 10 years above the average of the other major witnesses.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Hunter]

Abberline was trying to fit a witness description around his suspect too. He dismisses Long's estimation of age because she only saw him from behind, but accepts other features she mentions and that he looked like a foreigner. Notice he mentions the peaked cap referenced by Lawende, but doesn't mention the man's features, which wouldn't have fit Klosowski.

[Adam Went]

The lack of a mention of the Stride witnesses surely does no harm to the case against Pipeman being Jack the Ripper as opposed to BS Man who Israel Schwartz saw attacking Liz on the street. Nobody else seems to have reported seeing Pipeman, despite the plethora of witnesses, and Schwartz was never called to the Inquest (his description of Pipeman was of course quite vague), so in a weird kind of way it almost lends some credibility to that theory, especially if one sees Stride's murder as opportunistic....

Abberline's comments about Mrs. Long are somewhat perplexing however, especially since she herself couldn't swear to anyone.

Cheers,
Adam.

[lynn cates]

stymied

Hello Bridewell. I agree--if you are referring to later on. Many were stymied by the whole thing.

But I cannot help but wonder if Monro figured it all out?

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

Retrospective

Hello Jon. I should say. When one looks through the memoranda of September and October, one is struck by the honesty and candour--from Warren all the way down to Abberline.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

Indeed, but I think there's an awful lot of retrospective wishful thinking in their accounts. As regards suspects, I think it clear that they didn't have any real idea who was responsible.

Otherwise we have to find a Polish Jew called Dr T who was at one time at the bottom of the Thames.

Regards, Bridewell

[DVV]

Hi RedB

"David Abrahamesn erroneously describes him as City PC Smith, no. 452, which misled N. P. Warren to speculate (Ripperana, April 1993) that this might be the 'City P.C. near Mitre Court' described in the Macnaghten memoranda" The JtR A-Z by Paul Begg, Martin Fido & Keith Skinner.

I can't find this in the AZ, must have missed it (acc to the index, Abrahamsen is referred to pages 12-13 and 361).

Maybe this explains why Griffiths says that only a PC near Mitre 'Court' was the only witness.

I fail to see how Abrahamsen's mistake could have mistaken Griffiths, already dead and buried.

[RedBundy13]

"David Abrahamesn erroneously describes him as City PC Smith, no. 452, which misled N. P. Warren to speculate (Ripperana, April 1993) that this might be the 'City P.C. near Mitre Court' described in the Macnaghten memoranda" The JtR A-Z by Paul Begg, Martin Fido & Keith Skinner.
Maybe this explains why Griffiths says that only a PC near Mitre 'Court' was the only witness.
He was also mistaken about the victim and the location.

[DVV]

Unfortunately, as you know, we only have vague comments from the time of the murders and these are surely toned down. What we do not have is their private suspicions, which of course they were not permitted to voice to the press.
So at the time of the murders we have no idea who they suspected, if anyone.

No Jon, this I don't know. There is strong evidence, for example, that after the double event there were those who believe Jack was a Jew, and those who believe he was a gentile. And this is already a major fracture in trhe forming theories.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon

that's the problem, or rather, that's not (!!!).
Actually, I agree with Lynn that their own theories prompted them (some of them, rather) to favour this or that suspect.

Unfortunately, as you know, we only have vague comments from the time of the murders and these are surely toned down. What we do not have is their private suspicions, which of course they were not permitted to voice to the press.
So at the time of the murders we have no idea who they suspected, if anyone.

At the same time, you must feel, just as I do, that their memories were faulty, that none of them knew or remember much of the facts. Too much confusion, isn't it ?

That is what I see as part of the problem, faulty memories and exagerated ego, or at least the feeling of being incumbent to have known more about the killer than they really did.
In other words, "he" may have beaten "us" from the legal perspective, but "he" did not beat "me", "I" had his number, etc.

It is at that time, I believe, that most of them did espouse their theories and subsequently chose to favour a witness.

If there was anything more than simple personal preference then I would expect there to have been more of a consensus among officials, several of them pointing the finger at one man.
Since that was not the case, then actual evidence was not the principal consideration, which means their 'after-the-fact' opinions count for little.

Regards, Jon S.

[DVV]

I would put more faith in the opinions of police officials given at the time of the murders, not a decade or so later.

Any comments they made between Aug. 1888 until the end of 1891? or thereabouts, has value, nothing written later especially much later.

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Jon

that's the problem, or rather, that's not (!!!).
Actually, I agree with Lynn that their own theories prompted them (some of them, rather) to favour this or that suspect.

At the same time, you must feel, just as I do, that their memories were faulty, that none of them knew or remember much of the facts. Too much confusion, isn't it ?

And this tells me that their theories have not been been formed 10 years after the crimes but at the very time of the investigation. It is at that time, I believe, that most of them did espouse their theories and subsequently chose to favour a witness.

[DVV]

Hello David. I would explain it by their formulating a theory and trying to bend the facts to fit it.

Agreed and I think it's a very important point. I'll be back on it responding to Jon.

You are familiar with the bed of Procrustus?

How you dare ?

[lynn cates]

honesty

Hello Jon. I should say. When one looks through the memoranda of September and October, one is struck by the honesty and candour--from Warren all the way down to Abberline.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Ol' 'Crusty

Hello David. I would explain it by their formulating a theory and trying to bend the facts to fit it. You are familiar with the bed of Procrustus?

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

I would put more faith in the opinions of police officials given at the time of the murders, not a decade or so later.

Any comments they made between Aug. 1888 until the end of 1891? or thereabouts, has value, nothing written later especially much later.

Regards, Jon S.